The boxing also destroys the flex and stresses the ---- out of the CJ
frames. The inner added on box always splits by the back spring at it's
front on the passenger side and the rear of the front spring on the
drivers side on the outside frame.

They even sell premade plates to reinforce these areas.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
> going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
> moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
> I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
> with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
> (http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
> opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
> it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
> because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
> frame.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jeff G
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Hi Bubba,
> > I wouldn't box the frame, I did between the front spring perches,
> > and I'm really sorry I did, it warped the frame. Remember boxing the
> > frame is one of the major reasons the CJ-7 and up rust out, that and
> > they use sheet metal. Repair any cracks you find using ugly gussets, the
> > only sure fire way to stop a crack. Maybe box your V8's motor mount
> > area, but the rest of the frame should be good, I believe it's same as
> > used under the one ton trucks:
> > http://www.jtrux.com/******/60trk/images/60jtruck.jpg Remember your
> > frame is designed to flex, that's why it's riveted together to work like
> > a commercial truck. If you notice they practically twist in half
> > starting a big load.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Bubba Kahuna wrote:
> >
> >>Just wondering about a couple things.
> >>Has anyone here boxed in a frame on a ****** Wagon?
> >>If it's used almost exclusively on the street, do you really need to?
> >>Even with 200hp under the hood and long distance freeway speeds?
> >>Would it help (or even matter) for towing?
> >>
> >>My frame is actually very clean and solid (only cracked where the core
> >>support was cut up by a previous owner making room for a SBC), but I've
> >>heard nothing good about these frame's structural integrity. I have seen
> >>a LOT of them with more cracks than a plumber's convention. Is that just
> >>the normal fate of these Wagon frames?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >> - Jeff G
> >>http://jeffgross.com/******

 

The boxing also destroys the flex and stresses the ---- out of the CJ
frames. The inner added on box always splits by the back spring at it's
front on the passenger side and the rear of the front spring on the
drivers side on the outside frame.

They even sell premade plates to reinforce these areas.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
> going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
> moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
> I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
> with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
> (http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
> opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
> it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
> because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
> frame.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jeff G
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Hi Bubba,
> > I wouldn't box the frame, I did between the front spring perches,
> > and I'm really sorry I did, it warped the frame. Remember boxing the
> > frame is one of the major reasons the CJ-7 and up rust out, that and
> > they use sheet metal. Repair any cracks you find using ugly gussets, the
> > only sure fire way to stop a crack. Maybe box your V8's motor mount
> > area, but the rest of the frame should be good, I believe it's same as
> > used under the one ton trucks:
> > http://www.jtrux.com/******/60trk/images/60jtruck.jpg Remember your
> > frame is designed to flex, that's why it's riveted together to work like
> > a commercial truck. If you notice they practically twist in half
> > starting a big load.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Bubba Kahuna wrote:
> >
> >>Just wondering about a couple things.
> >>Has anyone here boxed in a frame on a ****** Wagon?
> >>If it's used almost exclusively on the street, do you really need to?
> >>Even with 200hp under the hood and long distance freeway speeds?
> >>Would it help (or even matter) for towing?
> >>
> >>My frame is actually very clean and solid (only cracked where the core
> >>support was cut up by a previous owner making room for a SBC), but I've
> >>heard nothing good about these frame's structural integrity. I have seen
> >>a LOT of them with more cracks than a plumber's convention. Is that just
> >>the normal fate of these Wagon frames?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >> - Jeff G
> >>http://jeffgross.com/******

 

The boxing also destroys the flex and stresses the ---- out of the CJ
frames. The inner added on box always splits by the back spring at it's
front on the passenger side and the rear of the front spring on the
drivers side on the outside frame.

They even sell premade plates to reinforce these areas.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
> going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
> moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
> I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
> with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
> (http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
> opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
> it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
> because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
> frame.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jeff G
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Hi Bubba,
> > I wouldn't box the frame, I did between the front spring perches,
> > and I'm really sorry I did, it warped the frame. Remember boxing the
> > frame is one of the major reasons the CJ-7 and up rust out, that and
> > they use sheet metal. Repair any cracks you find using ugly gussets, the
> > only sure fire way to stop a crack. Maybe box your V8's motor mount
> > area, but the rest of the frame should be good, I believe it's same as
> > used under the one ton trucks:
> > http://www.jtrux.com/******/60trk/images/60jtruck.jpg Remember your
> > frame is designed to flex, that's why it's riveted together to work like
> > a commercial truck. If you notice they practically twist in half
> > starting a big load.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Bubba Kahuna wrote:
> >
> >>Just wondering about a couple things.
> >>Has anyone here boxed in a frame on a ****** Wagon?
> >>If it's used almost exclusively on the street, do you really need to?
> >>Even with 200hp under the hood and long distance freeway speeds?
> >>Would it help (or even matter) for towing?
> >>
> >>My frame is actually very clean and solid (only cracked where the core
> >>support was cut up by a previous owner making room for a SBC), but I've
> >>heard nothing good about these frame's structural integrity. I have seen
> >>a LOT of them with more cracks than a plumber's convention. Is that just
> >>the normal fate of these Wagon frames?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >> - Jeff G
> >>http://jeffgross.com/******

 

Cheez, I didn't have to cut out the firewall of my '48 Jeep pickup,
just barely in view at: http://www.----------.com/48jeepPU.jpg Your
conversion must have been made without the four inch Advanced Adapter,
that move the engine forward, like Kaiser Jeeps used with their stock
Buick V6 and V8s.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
> going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
> moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
> I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
> with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
> (http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
> opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
> it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
> because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
> frame.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jeff G

 

Cheez, I didn't have to cut out the firewall of my '48 Jeep pickup,
just barely in view at: http://www.----------.com/48jeepPU.jpg Your
conversion must have been made without the four inch Advanced Adapter,
that move the engine forward, like Kaiser Jeeps used with their stock
Buick V6 and V8s.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
> going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
> moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
> I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
> with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
> (http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
> opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
> it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
> because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
> frame.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jeff G

 

Cheez, I didn't have to cut out the firewall of my '48 Jeep pickup,
just barely in view at: http://www.----------.com/48jeepPU.jpg Your
conversion must have been made without the four inch Advanced Adapter,
that move the engine forward, like Kaiser Jeeps used with their stock
Buick V6 and V8s.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
> going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
> moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
> I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
> with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
> (http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
> opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
> it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
> because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
> frame.
>
> Thanks,
> - Jeff G

 

Oh no! Whoever did this, made some very 'creative' motor mounts by
bending some strap iron into 'V' shaped bars, then welding them directly
to the frame. The motor is actually just sitting on these engineering
marvels by it's own weight.

And people keep asking me 'Why don't you just drive it with the 283 in
there the way it is?'.
* 1. I don't even know if it runs. I suspect it might because it looks
like it has all new freeze plugs in it which would suggest some level of
work done on it, but hardly any guarantees. The Rochester quadrajet
looks to be in great condition, but I have no idea how long it sat
before I bought it.
* 2. The 283 (1958~1961 230hp passenger car version according to the
castings) will either sit forward enough that I have to cut up the core
support for clearance, or rebuild the fire wall. I already have to fix
both, but would rather have a lighter engine that puts out more power
than a 40+ year old V8 when I make new parts.
* 3. I have 2 good running V6's that I have nothing to do with but put
in here. Choice is between a 1960 vintage 283 with unknown condition or
a Chevy 4.3L V6 (runs real strong but has a bad rod knock and missing
TBI) or Toyota 3.0L V6 (complete with entire EFI system & computer that
runs like a Swiss watch).
* 4. Those motor mounts have got to go.

Just got new pics back from my buddy at the blasting shop of me plastic
media striping the body parts down to bare metal. I'll be posting them
on my website in a few.

Cheers,
- Jeff G



L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Cheez, I didn't have to cut out the firewall of my '48 Jeep pickup,
> just barely in view at: http://www.----------.com/48jeepPU.jpg Your
> conversion must have been made without the four inch Advanced Adapter,
> that move the engine forward, like Kaiser Jeeps used with their stock
> Buick V6 and V8s.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
>>going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
>>moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
>>I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
>>with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
>>(http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
>> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
>>opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
>>it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
>>because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
>>frame.
>>
>>Thanks,
>> - Jeff G

 

Oh no! Whoever did this, made some very 'creative' motor mounts by
bending some strap iron into 'V' shaped bars, then welding them directly
to the frame. The motor is actually just sitting on these engineering
marvels by it's own weight.

And people keep asking me 'Why don't you just drive it with the 283 in
there the way it is?'.
* 1. I don't even know if it runs. I suspect it might because it looks
like it has all new freeze plugs in it which would suggest some level of
work done on it, but hardly any guarantees. The Rochester quadrajet
looks to be in great condition, but I have no idea how long it sat
before I bought it.
* 2. The 283 (1958~1961 230hp passenger car version according to the
castings) will either sit forward enough that I have to cut up the core
support for clearance, or rebuild the fire wall. I already have to fix
both, but would rather have a lighter engine that puts out more power
than a 40+ year old V8 when I make new parts.
* 3. I have 2 good running V6's that I have nothing to do with but put
in here. Choice is between a 1960 vintage 283 with unknown condition or
a Chevy 4.3L V6 (runs real strong but has a bad rod knock and missing
TBI) or Toyota 3.0L V6 (complete with entire EFI system & computer that
runs like a Swiss watch).
* 4. Those motor mounts have got to go.

Just got new pics back from my buddy at the blasting shop of me plastic
media striping the body parts down to bare metal. I'll be posting them
on my website in a few.

Cheers,
- Jeff G



L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Cheez, I didn't have to cut out the firewall of my '48 Jeep pickup,
> just barely in view at: http://www.----------.com/48jeepPU.jpg Your
> conversion must have been made without the four inch Advanced Adapter,
> that move the engine forward, like Kaiser Jeeps used with their stock
> Buick V6 and V8s.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
>>going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
>>moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
>>I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
>>with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
>>(http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
>> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
>>opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
>>it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
>>because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
>>frame.
>>
>>Thanks,
>> - Jeff G

 

Oh no! Whoever did this, made some very 'creative' motor mounts by
bending some strap iron into 'V' shaped bars, then welding them directly
to the frame. The motor is actually just sitting on these engineering
marvels by it's own weight.

And people keep asking me 'Why don't you just drive it with the 283 in
there the way it is?'.
* 1. I don't even know if it runs. I suspect it might because it looks
like it has all new freeze plugs in it which would suggest some level of
work done on it, but hardly any guarantees. The Rochester quadrajet
looks to be in great condition, but I have no idea how long it sat
before I bought it.
* 2. The 283 (1958~1961 230hp passenger car version according to the
castings) will either sit forward enough that I have to cut up the core
support for clearance, or rebuild the fire wall. I already have to fix
both, but would rather have a lighter engine that puts out more power
than a 40+ year old V8 when I make new parts.
* 3. I have 2 good running V6's that I have nothing to do with but put
in here. Choice is between a 1960 vintage 283 with unknown condition or
a Chevy 4.3L V6 (runs real strong but has a bad rod knock and missing
TBI) or Toyota 3.0L V6 (complete with entire EFI system & computer that
runs like a Swiss watch).
* 4. Those motor mounts have got to go.

Just got new pics back from my buddy at the blasting shop of me plastic
media striping the body parts down to bare metal. I'll be posting them
on my website in a few.

Cheers,
- Jeff G



L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Cheez, I didn't have to cut out the firewall of my '48 Jeep pickup,
> just barely in view at: http://www.----------.com/48jeepPU.jpg Your
> conversion must have been made without the four inch Advanced Adapter,
> that move the engine forward, like Kaiser Jeeps used with their stock
> Buick V6 and V8s.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Bubba Kahuna wrote:
>
>>Hi Bill,
>> I wondered about the rust issue getting crud trapped in there. I'm not
>>going to use the 283 that's in there, it'll be getting a V6 that will be
>>moved to the rear so clearance at the core support won't be an issus.
>>I'll have to box in/back the firewall some, but the PO started that job
>>with a sledgehammer for me already so it'll be new anyhow.
>>(http://jeffgross.com/******/pages/MVC-880F.htm
>> The required-flex makes sense. I've read a lot of other paople's
>>opinions about how/why these frames should be boxed, but wasn't sure if
>>it was because of normal flex being too much, or flex becoming too much
>>because of rot. I think I'll leave it as-is and powder coat or Rhino the
>>frame.
>>
>>Thanks,
>> - Jeff G